Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Chandra Mahto vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 105 of 2018
......
1. Sudhir Chandra Mahto
2. Smt. Balika Devi .... .. ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata (West
Bengal) . ... ... Respondent
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the Resp-Railway : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
..........
07/ 01.02.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Sudhir Chandra Mahto
and Smt. Balika Devi parents of the deceased (Sushil Kumar Mahto) have preferred
the instant Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment dated 23.06.2017 passed
by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi
in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/12/2017 whereby the claim application of the
claimants/appellants have been dismissed on the ground that Rupesh Kumar
Mahto has stated at the first instance before the GRP that deceased fell down
while attempting to get down at Tupkadih station and the statement of AW-2 (Sri
Manoj Kumar Mahto) is vague and it does not provide any reason as to how and
why the victim fell down and he does not state that there was crowd in a train or
there was jostling amongst the passengers. Therefore, considering it not to be an
accident fall from the running train and not covered under Section 123(c)(2) of
the Railways Act, 1989 rather the accident is defined and covered under Clause
(a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124(A) of the Railway Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased (Sushil
Kumar Mahto) died in an untoward railway incident on 18.03.2015 while
travelling with train no.13319, Baijnathdham-Ranchi Intercity from Dhanbad to
Bokaro Steel City Station. During the journey, he fell down at Tupkadih Station.
The UD Case No.2/15 was registered by GRPS/Bokaro. The DRM's report has
not been brought on record by the Railway.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that F.I.R. has
been brought on record by applicants as Exhibit-1, the fardbeyan of Rupesh
Kumar Mahato has been brought on record as Exhbit-2, who is brother of the
deceased, but not a co-passenger with the deceased. Final report as Exhibit-A3, case
diary of SDO/Chass, Bokaro and P.M. report has been brought on record as Exhbit-
A4. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by respondent either by
adducing oral or documentary evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that learned Tribunal
has wrongly considered the fardbeyan of Rupesh Kumar Mahato by disbelieving the
case of the claimants though the claimant, Sudhir Chandra Mahto, who has been
examined as AW-1 has categorically stated at para 3 of his evidence that his son,
Sushil Kumar Mahto boarded on Baijnathdham-Ranchi express train at Dhanbad
station on 18.03.2015 at about 8.30 Hours after purchasing proper ticket to B.S. City
from where, he had go to Government Polytechnic College, Khutari. His friend
Manoj Kumar Mahto was with him and at para 4 of his evidence, he has stated that
unfortunately, he fell down on track from the said moving train at Tupkadih station.
The train was stopped. He was put on board on guard's bogie with help of guard
of the said train and co-passengers. Injured was carried to Bokaro Steel City Station
where first aid treatment was given and subsequently he was shifted to B.G.
Hospital, Bokaro by Railway Ambulance and admitted at about 11.30 Hrs. But
injured died during treatment in the hospital on the same day at about 13.30 Hrs. He
has further stated at para 5 of the evidence, that his son, Rupesh Mahto was informed
by Manoj Kumar Mahato and Railway police over mobile regarding the said
untoward incident, as such, the contradiction in the evidence of Rupesh Kumar
Mahato is not considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal in proper perspective
rather the evidence of Manoj Kumar Mahto (AW-2) at paras 1 and 2 has not been
considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal which may be profitably quoted
hereunder:-
"1.That both I and Sushil Kumar Mahto (since deeased) boarded train
No.13319 (Baijnath-Dham-Ranchi Exp.) at Dhanbad- Station on: 18.03.2015 at
about 8-30 Hours for going to Bokaro-Steel City Station, after Purchased Exp.
Ticket (Separately) to Bokaro Steel City.
2. That, Sushil Kumar Mahto was standing near the door of the Compartment
after attending Toilet. Unfortunately, he fell down on track from moving train
near Topkadih Station. Halla raised, the train was stopped."
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a benevolent
legislation, but the learned Tribunal has taken hypertechnical approach in relying
upon the statement of Rupesh Kumar Mahto, brother of the deceased, who was not a
co-passenger and did not consider the evidence of eye witness A.W.-2 (Manoj
Kumar Mahto), who was co-passenger and friend of the deceased, as such, the
impugned order may be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has submitted that learned
Tribunal has rightly considered the fardbeyan of the brother of the deceased where it
is established that the deceased fell down because of his negligence and the case
comes under clause (a) to (e) of proviso to Section 124(A) of the Railway Act.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has further submitted that since
there is no evidence that deceased died because of jostling amongst the passengers
in the train, as such, learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application of the
applicants.
9. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence of AW-2 (Manoj Kumar Mahto), who is
eye witness to the occurrence has categorically stated that he along with the
deceased were travelling in the train after having express ticket separately. The
deceased went to ease himself in the washroom and after coming out from the
washroom was standing near the door of the compartment but because of jostling the
deceased fell down from the train. The learned Tribunal has not considered the
evidence in right perspective though there is evidence that deceased was a bonafide
passenger having valid ticket and he was standing near the door of the compartment
and fell down because the door was open, as such, considering the same in view of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, para 29 profitably quoted herein:-
"29. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not
negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on
the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts
and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the
facts shown or the attending circumstances."
And in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008(9) SCC 527,
this Court is inclined to rely upon the evidence of A.W-2 (Manoj Kumar Mahto)
and coupled with the evidence of A.W.1 (Sudhir Chandra Mahto). Since no
contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway as it appears from
para 6 of the impugned judgment.
10. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to accept and allow the same by
awarding a sum of Rs.8 lacs in view of new amendment Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents Compensation Rule, 1996 which has been amended in 2016,
with effect from 01.01.2017 vide Railway accidents and untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, which shall be paid to both the
claimants in equal proportion i.e. Rs.4 lacs each with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim application till the actual date of indemnifying the award.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed.
12. Let the LC.R. be sent down.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/R.S.
